Glenn E. Meyer
New member
But that's a different thread to discuss the metacontext of killing.
We are better off focusing on the OP that you suggested Ken.
We are better off focusing on the OP that you suggested Ken.
Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
Can the servers handle another 29 plus pager
WildkickoffinafewminutesusavsbrazilAlaska TM
Strategy: Systematic plan(s) of action.
Tactics: Maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy.
When executing plan A (strategy), always have a plan B (tactics), preferably more, in reserve.
I have already opined that the OP's question is essentially unanswerable. With this new twist, the question becomes even more unanswerable.
Tactics: Maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy.
When executing plan A (strategy), always have a plan B (tactics), preferably more, in reserve.
I have already opined that the OP's question is essentially unanswerable. With this new twist, the question becomes even more unanswerable.
Yes, but.... You will have to make it a tactical or training issue. Not us.Ken said:Can the servers handle another 29 plus pager
Wildalaska
Moderator
I love challenges
Like the USA NOW LEADING MIGHTY BRAZIL 2-0!!!!!!!
WildeatitoworldWEhavearrivedAlaska TM
None of the above. Morals and ethics are a PERSONAL matter. I think certain sexual practices are immoral, many others disagree with me and I don't bother trying to force my views on any of them. You cannot impose your personal ethics upon others. To do so is incredibly presumptuous and arrogant. Additionaly, you cannot expect someone to hold up to your ethical/moral code. We see this right now in the Middle East. We have two cultures that views each other as backwards and neither is going to yield...I will stop here to hopefully avoid a political derail, but you get the idea I hope...
OldMarksman
Staff
Of course not. Army soldiers, Marines, and SOCOM forces have a duty to find, engage, and destroy or capture enemies in combat.
I don't know, maybe.
But for a civilian, it says it all. The civilian can only use a deadly weapon when no other solution will suffice (when it is necessary). "Tool of last resort" would seem the perfect description.
mikejonestkd
New member
Agreed oldmarksman!!!
The use of a firearm against another person is an act of last resort; used only when you have made a significant effort to avoid having to use it.
Self defense is self preservation, and retreating is not only an option but a great option. Standing your ground might be legal but I doubt that it is the wisest choice.
The use of a firearm against another person is an act of last resort; used only when you have made a significant effort to avoid having to use it.
Self defense is self preservation, and retreating is not only an option but a great option. Standing your ground might be legal but I doubt that it is the wisest choice.
I think that you're, perhaps unknowingly, projecting your opinion on the use of firearms regardless of the legal facts.
In cases where deadly force is a legal option, the civilian is not necessarily obligated to try other alternative "tools", nor must he exhaust all over possible solutions before using a firearm.
In more simple words...
When someone is kicking down your front door, the gun is most likely NOT going to be your "tool of last resort".
It will most likely be the tool of first resort.
OldMarksman
Staff
He may not use deadly force unless he believes it necessary (using North Carolina rules here fore purposes of discussion). How can it be necessary if there are other alternatives?
Now, if you are opining that he need not try a crossbow before using a gun, I agree.
I'm afraid I have difficulty coming up with anything likely to prove effective that might be reasonably tried before using deadly force under that circumstance.
But if there is something you can think of that would suffice, that would mean that you do not believe that the use of deadly force was at that time necessary, wouldn't it?
And if a person did not actually believe deadly force to be necessary, what makes you think that is would be lawful?
Yes, I think that is someone is kicking down my front door and that if he should beginning to get inside, my gun would be my tool of last resort, but I know of no other to try first.
No, we're not talking about "deadly force" as a "tool of last resort", we're talking about "the gun" as the "tool of last resort".
Someone's kicking in your front door (and you don't even know if they are armed or not)....
You have a shotgun in one corner and a baseball bat in the other corner.
Both are quite capable of delivering "deadly force", and both are quite capable of stopping an aggressive human.
But which one would you grab first?
If you would grab the shotgun first, then you simply cannot make the argument that "the gun" is your "tool of last resort".
easyG it looks like you're trying to build a scenario that supports your argument.
If someone bashes in the front door and I grab the shotgun instead of the baseball bat, I still have the option of knocking the intruder in the head with the barrel.
If I instead grab the bat and the intruder is a threat that can't be handled by a big stick, I have failed at my primary duty of keeping myself and my family safe.
Remember the law takes into consideration my motives and my emotional state. The vast majority of potential jurors will understand why I grabbed the gun instead of the bat, even if they would have chosen the bat.
If someone bashes in the front door and I grab the shotgun instead of the baseball bat, I still have the option of knocking the intruder in the head with the barrel.
If I instead grab the bat and the intruder is a threat that can't be handled by a big stick, I have failed at my primary duty of keeping myself and my family safe.
Remember the law takes into consideration my motives and my emotional state. The vast majority of potential jurors will understand why I grabbed the gun instead of the bat, even if they would have chosen the bat.
- Status